The rebirth of 2D animation

Hi Wade, I picked on Maya (somewhat unfairly) because as an instructor I encounter students every year who struggle with the software, thinking they are somehow insufficient to learn it. Maya really pushes the image that it is a full service "off-the-shelf" solution (likewise unfair). Can anyone model in Maya "off-the-shelf"? Of course some can - and very well - but most have a slew of mel-scripts and plug-ins that they need to do what other software packages offer in a (for newcomers) more intuitive interface.

So much for that - my main comment is that I am convinced that the 2D and 3D approaches will merge, partly due to technological / interface advances.

I imagine a not-too-distant future wherein the 2D vs 3D discussion won't be a camp (like the software wars of a couple of years ago) but a shot by shot or pipeline discussion - and the technologies will be able to be married in one pipeline.

I've got a lot less formal training than some of the folks around here, and 2D was where my interest started, but I've found what little practice and experience in 2D invaluable in my new interests in 3D.

Timing, weight reactions, velocity, etc. are all helped by working in 2D first.

I've always felt that 3D animation was more akin to Stop Motion or puppetry animation than traditional animation. And while I respect the medium and have enjoyed most of the 3d films that have been released so far, I think it is lacking something that the traditional medium has.

There's just some kind of magic light that goes off in a person's head when they watch a drawing come to life. You see it when kids watch cartoons, humans are more guarded with their emotions but it's there. Children will dig most any cartoon, but one that's hand drawn and they look like they're hooked, totally.

I myself learned the 3d route as well, thinking i'm going to need it to survive, but to me, it's just not as fulfilling as putting that pencil down and expressing myself through motion. There's was just something so... inhuman about clicking that mouse and such. Even drawing with a tablet and using flash or toonboom doesn't give me that same connection. Animating and drafting can be such a personally intimate process, and for me, it's just not like that with the computer. Now i'm not dissing computers, noway. That's an amazing tool that I think could be utilized by 2d animators to some serious ends. The ability to remove a huge task like ink and paint is amazing.

I just love Traditional more. It's a medium that speaks to me.

I completley agree. Something is just so magical when your characters come to life on a 2D medium rather then constantly pressing play in maya. Plus I feel you work harder and of course you are forced to draw out every frame needed to show your work.

And as Larry says I have to completley agree with what he says weak artist makes weak animators. I have met too many people who pass of traditional skills as something they no longer need as a result of the computer. Without drawing how do you plan out your scenes? how do you thumbnail every pose? You cant fully understand weight, gesture, and form in my opinion without the required skills on paper itself.

The advent of computers within our medium has been a great asset however, this "greatness" usually yeilds from individuals or studios that continue onwards with a strong foundation.

If I have to read one more thread on the various forums that say "Is drawing important for computer animators?" I will just have to drop all that I love and become a farmer. :)

Ah yes, yet another "2D vs 3D" thread. This is like discussing politics and religion - at the end of the day, there's been a lot of talk, but nobody's mind has been changed.

I don't understand why animators feel the need to have this conversation over and over. If you prefer one over the other, fine - so do that one. No one's forcing anyone to animate using any tool other than the one they choose.

Larry, of course you'd find 2D more intuitive than 3D - you've been doing 2D a lot longer. And coming into it with the opinion you do, I imagine it'll stay that way a loooong time.

I've done (and continue to do) both, which I guess makes me a heretic in both camps...

My first experience with 3D software has come in the past couple months thanks to the local college; There are so many nonintuitive steps in the process of 3D, and honestly so many -reliances- on 2D planning and principle knowledge...that it reminds of debate class. One of the best things you could do to dismantle someone is something akin to

Should we keep the electoral college? And the one team's position would be "Yes, but let's do proportional distribution of electoral votes."

Anyhow, the way to dismantle that argument (in the teacher's eyes, I have no intention of turning this into another discussion, it just makes for a good example), is simply to point out that for all the changes and energy that would have to be put into it, a strong enough argument can't be made that there's enough reason to make the leap.

I feel that way about 3D now. Most people lack common sense, so we're in a position now where it's the majority of what's taught at the schools and the majority of the higher-level job spots (as opposed to it being that way for the artistic merits of 3D)... However, it can never really be independent. To me 3D is a visual transformation of 2D. A conversion and nothing more.

I would much rather whip out a bunch of error-ridden inspired poses and ridiculous faces and have people go along with the ride and wrap themselves the concept that I've moved their minds by moving a line...than to memorize the individual breakdowns of 75 different nuts and bolts and screws that slightly skew the lips for the face I'm going for, but not quite. Oh, and don't forget to create a key for -- no, well not for the parent object, just go down to the - yah, the arm -- well yes it has children too, so it's a parent, but it's not the main parent...they have their own motion paths!

I just imagine that it is its own great thing, and you can't say 2D or 3D, one or the other, make a choice....They truly are separate mediums....but what you can say is the same people that are passionate about one can safely be exclusively passionate about the other.

Well with politics and religion, there is usually some extremist opinion. Is anyone vehemently AGAINST one of the two media as an animation format? All the criticism I've heard are apathetic at best, maybe some mild criticism... The only real PASSION is FOR something...

I am learning Maya and it just doesn't seem intuitive like 2D does.

Hah! I use 3D for years and Maya is the least intuitive package out there! Its a programming platform and only starts to makes sense (and then it makes quite a bit of sense) when you have larger numbers of team members, some few of which can adapt the interface for the animators to be able to work efficiently. Check out Hash Aniamtion Master or XSI or messiah:animate for much more intuitive software intefaces...

That said, I'm convinced (and tell my students repeatedly) that 2D will come back with a vengeance. I expect that a wave of innovation is around the corner, and software enabling tweens and clean-up will appear, in addition to the already competent coloring systems out there. The flood of godd and (overwhelmingly) bad 3D films on the horizon will take the polish off 3D while 2D learns to integrate 3D, integrating its advantages....

my 2 cents...

That sounds like good news to me. I myself have been looking joining the field of animation for a long time.

In time, even Disney is going to have to wake up and smell the Java. If 2-D was really becoming antique, then why did Lilo & Stitch earn $147 mil in its domestic intake? Why did Brother Bear earn $156 mil in its overseas intake?

This is one of those things where the businesses are TELLING us what to like rather than giving us WHAT we like.

I'll be the first to say that I wish I didn't have to model, UV map, texture, rig, and weight (didn't I forget anything) a character before I can animate it. The one thing I do miss about production is being handed a model and animating with it but that's just the natural of the beast. 3D is truely a left and right brain, can't be in no hurry, you are in for the long haul kind of thing.

But like someone mentioned earlier in the thread; 2D and 3D are what they are, you love it or hate it, take it or leave it. I just saw Robots and can anyone really say that it would have looked better in 2D? Or that Lilo and Stitch would have in 3D? There aren't many movies that are 2D that I would like to see 3D or visa vera.

The question is can the public go from seeing the visual impact and beauty that Robots can give you and be satified with 2D no matter how good the story might be? Is the public now spoiled on 3D? Is there no turning back?

Personally I hope not but I think it's going to be later that sooner.

ed

That depends. My mind tells me yes, but I saw a review once that compared Final Fantasy: Spirits Within to Iron Giant, and said that the =latter= suffered from a lack of visual impact. If there are more geniuses like that out there =) than say people that think like most of us here, well, we're all screwed. But I see more pockets of people everyday that are smarter than Hollywood gives them credit for.

Whispers isn't even in production yet, but its a storyteller's movie and the whole concept and scripting is impressive. There's a strong chance it might never get picked up. But you know movies =have= been ? Mr. Saturday Night, The Pickle, and all of Kate Hudson's career...

It seems when it comes to the film industry, we have the minds to create, and the minds to appreciate, but neither of those minds are often in positions of power and control.

That...and I heard, James Baxter (Shrek 2) has left 3D to start up a 2D studio.

A 2D studio..for him to teach 2D or produce features?

I couldve sworn he's under contract with Dreamworks...where did you hear this from? Just curious.

i desperately wish that the rebirth of animation were already here so traditional animators can all say "HAH TOLD YOU SO" and leave the passionately creative 3D people alone to their tinkering while the hybrid 2D|3D animators can have two jobs.

i desperately wish that the rebirth of animation were already here so traditional animators can all say "HAH TOLD YOU SO" and leave the passionately creative 3D people alone to their tinkering while the hybrid 2D|3D animators can have two jobs.

I think the rebirth of animation is already here and it's 3D. Ever since the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast it seems it was a run away frieght train picking up speed. Little by litte more 3D elements were thrown in until you had Toy Story and the rest is history.

It's like the music biz, you might really like the texture and the feel of a record albums but if you want to listen to music today you have to go digital.

It's kind of a twisted analogy but it works.

ed

It's still and, not or.

I think a good story with heart and any technique will eventually win over formula fare. But I think comparing 3d to 2d is like comparing oil paint to watercolor, they are both fine, but they both have limitations. Neither one can pretend to be the other without losing some of it's integrity.

Just my opinion.

Pat

A 2D studio..for him to teach 2D or produce features?

I couldve sworn he's under contract with Dreamworks...where did you hear this from? Just curious.

Not that I like promoting this site, but this is where I read about James Baxter.
http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009914

thankx for the info , AA ;)

That's how these things go. Larry voices an opinion, the whole thread blows up in response =) It's the theme of the past month or so. Won't you join the fun?

Not to be coy, but in our field both 2D and 3D -are- 4D. We are interdimensional travelers, creating the future nobody knows is going to happen till it becomes the present.

Personally, I think it only becomes a debate when it relates to career opprotunities or the job market. I think what us 2D guys are sore over is that our job opprotunites are all drying up. 3D is definitely here to stay, and it (can be) a remarkable animation medium. I find it more related to stop motion animation than traditionally drawn animation. That's not to say one is BETTER than the other, though we all have our preferences.

I don't think that 2D is extinct, nor do I believe it will be on the back burner for too much longer. But to quote Deep Throat in All the Kings Men: "Follow the money." In this industry money drives the studio decisions and right now the money is on 3D. You have faster turn over, in many cases 3d artists didn't have to work at Union rates until recently. You have a smaller staff, and the fad factor attracts a larger audience (so far).

The cost of producing 3d animated features, and the staffing of such a project is growing astronomically. The R&D funds alone are astounding and frankly the job market is getting over saturated. Every stoner out of high school with access to a computer thinks he can be a 3d Animator and that makes actual jobs more scarce. As technology makes these films more expensive they will become less fiscally viable, especially in the light of studio competitiveness. Once the bottom drops out of the 3D industry and a few BAD movies hit, the newness will be gone and you'll be left with just an animated movie, regardless of it's being 3d or 2d. As audiences become more accustomed to viewing 3d the fad factor will drop off.

As technology gets better it will actually alleviate labor issues related to 2d animated films and that model of storytelling will become once more, fiscally viable and will inevitably look better than before. There will be integration of 3d like we've seen trending toward the end of the Disney days with Brother Bear and Lilo and Stitch. Some day 2d will make a sweet comeback and people will be happy. then we'll see threads complaining about 3d being too expensive and why should studios be choosing 2d over 3d again.

If you doubt it, look at all the High Production 2d Flash cartoons on CN and Nick, that's the future and it's more 2D than ever before. Flat flat flat, the contrast to 3D gives it a lot of appeal already.

I tend to think 2d, I started out with my creatvie side being a painter. At that time there was no actual 3d modelling. Although I had to learn that it, it wasn't one of my favorite things to do. Too many things depended on too many other things, but in 2d, you could bend the rules. 2d is more intuitive for me. Maybe this is off topic.

Hah! I use 3D for years and Maya is the least intuitive package out there! ...

I think it unfair to blame one piece of software for the limitations of 3D. I use 3D Max, XSI, AND Maya, and no one package can "save the 3D world" and be less intuitive. There are restrictions; restrictions that remain constant amongst ALL software packages...

You cannot get the same squash/stretch/exaggeration capabilities like you can in 2D. This is a fact. Admittedly, it is getting better... The Incredibles proved that. However, it is still VERY limited in this regard, and there is only on Pixar.

Also, I agree with Ed about the Modelling, Rigging, Skinning, Weighting.... arguement. That is a HUGE pain in the arse... 2D enables you to just sit down and animate, no strings attached. HOWEVER, the feedback loop is a LOT slower with 2D. You have to sit down, and shoot each drawing, and put together a line-test, whereas with 3D, you can simply move your time slider and see what you have done immediately.

I think it is a futile arguement "2D vs. 3D", and that is why I do not argue either side any more. They both have their advantages and their drawbacks. As long as we use each medium for what it is best suited for, we should all be able to live happily together. The best thing we as animators can do is to learn 'em both, as I have, and do whatever needs doing.

I have not read through ALL this threa dyet, and I may have something to add later. Sorry if this is really late in regards to the first post that I quoted.